Morgan Rielly’s long-awaited bounce-back season never arrived in 2025-26.
After a disappointing 2024-25 campaign, Rielly and then-GM Brad Treliving held what Treliving described as a “real, honest discussion” about the defenseman’s performance and the level he was capable of reaching. Rielly later acknowledged that he engaged in “healthy but challenging conversations” with several people, including himself.
By all accounts, Rielly responded exactly as the organization hoped during the offseason. Treliving said there were few days when Rielly wasn’t the first player into the facility and one of the last to leave. He lost a few pounds, arrived at camp looking noticeably leaner, and drew praise from teammates for how well he was skating. Craig Berube said Rielly had enjoyed “a hell of a summer” and was — as the old training camp cliche goes — in probably the best shape of his life.
Rielly had taken the criticism to heart, recommitted himself physically, and the hope was he was ready to rediscover the game that once made him one of the league’s most productive defensemen.
It never really happened. Rielly finished with 11 goals and 36 points in 78 games, marking his lowest point total in a full-length season since 2016-17. His goal total was actually the second-highest of his career, but he managed only 25 assists and six power-play points.
His minus-18 rating was second-worst among Leafs defensemen, trailing only Simon Benoit’s minus-22. At five-on-five, Rielly was outscored 79-98 (keeping in mind only OEL among the team’s regular defensemen finished the year on the positive side of the five-on-five goal ledger, and Rielly has a long history of winning his five-on-five minutes).
The Leafs also tilted Rielly’s offensive deployment even further. According to Hockey Reference, 65.4 percent of his even-strength non-neutral-zone starts came in the offensive zone, up from an already favourable 61.2 percent in 2024-25 and well above his career rate of 53.2 percent.
The Leafs gave Rielly favourable usage, plenty of PP1 minutes, and over 21 minutes per game. It still wasn’t enough to unlock him.
A reasonably promising start went unsustained
For a while, it appeared the offseason work might pay off. Rielly produced five goals and 23 points through his first 29 games. He was moving with more purpose, joining the rush, and finding ways to contribute offensively. By early January, his 26 points in 41 games ranked 20th among NHL defensemen.
The problem was that the team was giving up far too much with Rielly on the ice even while he was producing. At the season’s halfway point, the Leafs had already been outscored 47-35 with him at five-on-five, and he led the league in goals against per minute among regular defensemen despite generally avoiding the toughest assignments.
Once the offense dried up, little remained to offset those defensive results. After collecting 23 points in his first 29 games, Rielly produced only 13 over his final 49 appearances.
The individual errors became increasingly difficult to ignore. In an early-January 4-3 loss to the Islanders, Rielly played nearly 28 minutes after McCabe left the game, finished minus-four, and was directly involved in breakdowns on multiple goals against. During the Leafs’ disastrous late-January homestand, his poor reads and lost coverages repeatedly ended up in the back of Toronto’s net.
It wasn’t all on Rielly—far from it. The Leafs’ defensive structure was a mess for long stretches. They struggled to exit their zone cleanly, spent far too much time defending, and regularly looked confused in coverage. The system didn’t bring out the best in almost any of their players, and Rielly—whose value has always depended on his ability to skate, transport the puck, and join the offense—was particularly poorly suited to spending shift after shift retrieving pucks and attempting to survive extended defensive-zone sequences.
Still, the system/structure can’t explain everything. Rielly has looked like a diminished version of his former self for most of the past two regular seasons. At his best, he carried the puck through the neutral zone, activated below the circles (where he is a good finisher), and forced defenders to adjust to his movement.
That decline is a major problem for a defenseman who has never owned a threatening point shot or provided high-end defensive value. If Rielly isn’t consistently creating with his skating, his ability to positively impact the game in other areas is pretty limited.
Searching for a partner fit
The Leafs entered the season hoping Brandon Carlo could become the stabilizing partner Rielly needed, which made sense on paper. Carlo brought size, reach, penalty-killing ability, and a track record of handling defensive minutes. The theory was straightforward: Carlo could handle the defensive details while freeing Rielly to play aggressively and lead the transition game.
In practice, they never complemented each other. Carlo was far from the steadying force the Leafs envisioned, especially as he tried to regain his form after injuries. He really struggled to move the puck, and pairing him with Rielly often created a unit that couldn’t exit the defensive zone cleanly or defend effectively once hemmed in. Rielly didn’t elevate Carlo, while Carlo didn’t cover for Rielly’s misadventures or create the freedom Rielly needed.
By late January, it had become difficult to understand why the coaching staff remained so committed to the pairing. There was little evidence of a purpose—or much hope—for Rielly-Carlo as an effective top-four unit.
Rielly-OEL was probably the closest Toronto came to finding a passable answer. The two could move the puck, support the offense, and make sense together when deployed offensively. Over the past two seasons, though, the pairing has essentially broken even in goal share despite receiving heavily offensively tilted usage.
It hasn’t been a disaster, but “not a disaster” is a low bar. Given their offensive abilities and deployment, the Leafs should expect the pairing to win its minutes, not merely tread water.
That was the larger issue surrounding Rielly in 2025-26: No pairing truly clicked. Carlo didn’t stabilize him. OEL produced passable rather than convincing results beside him. Rielly-Myers was unsurprisingly filled in to the tune of 12-6 for the opponents at five-on-five.
By the end of the season, it was difficult to identify a role or partner that reliably worked.
The change of scenery that never happened
As the Leafs’ season unraveled, a Rielly trade increasingly felt less like speculation and more like the logical next step for both sides.
Rielly again publicly maintained after the season that he had always wanted to remain a Leaf and still wanted to stay. Behind the scenes, though, the organization clearly explored a trade, and reports indicated Rielly provided potential destinations he would consider within his full no-movement clause. Even Treliving, after leaving the organization, acknowledged that “sometimes, a change is good for everybody.”
Ultimately, no trade materialized. Whatever was required in terms of retention and/or sweeteners, the price was evidently too unappealing for John Chayka. We don’t know the specifics of the negotiations, but it is true that — as the Patrick Marleau trade example reminds us — there is a point at which the cost of removing an inefficient contract becomes more damaging than keeping it.
But the big challenge now is making a 2026-27 return work for both Rielly and the team after an offseason in which the possibility of a split played out so publicly.
It is time for an honest reckoning about Rielly’s role
Rielly averaged 21:08 per game last season, including 18:09 at even strength. Those numbers have to come down.
The arrival of Darren Raddysh should naturally reduce Rielly’s workload. Raddysh is coming off a 70-point season and led all NHL defensemen with 10 power-play goals. With Raddysh and Gavin McKenna joining the Leafs, there is no reasonable path to regular PP1 minutes for Rielly unless injuries strike.
The Leafs also need to reduce his even-strength responsibility instead of merely cutting his power-play time and leaving him in the 18-19 minute range at five-on-five.
This is not about punishing Rielly or embarrassing a respected veteran. It is about accepting what the player is at this stage of his career and placing him in a position to succeed.
The Leafs have added Raddysh, retained OEL and Stecher, acquired Emil Andrae, and should have Tanev available to begin the season. They will hopefully finally possess enough puck-moving ability and legitimate NHL depth to stop automatically treating Rielly like a 21-to-23-minute defenseman.
The exact pairings remain awkward to project, but one possibility (of many) is:
Jake McCabe — Darren Raddysh
Morgan Rielly — Chris Tanev
Oliver Ekman-Larsson — Emil Andrae/Troy Stecher
If McCabe-Raddysh can handle difficult assignments at five-on-five, it’s less on Rielly-Tanev’s plate. At 36 and coming off a season in which he played only 11 games, the Leafs probably shouldn’t immediately ask Tanev to resume a full slate of heavy matchup minutes beginning on opening night and every game thereafter. Using him beside Rielly against secondary competition might help preserve him while giving Rielly the intelligent, predictable, stable partner he needs.
Of course, that may be easier said than done. Tanev is the definition of a coach’s pet, and McCabe-Tanev has a proven history as an excellent shutdown pairing. If Tanev is healthy and playing well, it will be difficult for Jim Hiller to resist reuniting them. If that leaves the Leafs with Rielly-Raddysh, will that make any sense?
Rielly-OEL is a familiar option. There is enough puck-moving ability between Rielly and OEL to help the Leafs spend more time in the offensive zone, but their results need to progress beyond merely passable. With favourable deployment, a Rielly-OEL pairing should be winning its minutes.
Other possibilities:
McCabe – Raddysh
OEL – Tanev
Rielly – Stecher/Andrae
McCabe – Tanev
OEL – Raddysh
Rielly – Stecher/Andrae
Whatever combination Hiller and co. go with, the guiding principle should remain the same: Rielly’s name, salary, and history with the organization can no longer dictate the workload. Creativity with offensive and defensive deployments, plus mixing and matching, will be required to get Rielly’s minutes into the sweet spot.
Can a rising tide and revised role rehabilitate Rielly?
The best hope is that a better team structure and a reduced role make Rielly a useful player and less distressed asset.
Hiller has talked about playing with more pace and spending more time with the puck. If the Leafs become a better possession team, improve their defensive-zone exits, and reduce the amount of time their defensemen spend scrambling around their own zone, Rielly could be among the primary beneficiaries.
He can still make a difference offensively. He scored 11 goals last season, finishes well when he joins the rush (as mentioned, he has good finishing ability below the circles), and can still be effective when his legs are moving and his confidence is high. If he is feeling it on a particular night—or if injuries require him to take on more— the Leafs could reasonably lean on him more in spot duty.
What needs to end is the automatic 21+minute workload regardless of performance.
Rielly should be deployed as an offensively inclined defenseman who needs favourable usage and a suitable partner. On good nights, Hiller can ride him. On ordinary nights, he should play a more modest role. If his game is going sideways, the Leafs must finally have the willingness and necessary depth to reduce his minutes.
A good story might be possible here if everyone handles it properly. Rielly is the longest-tenured Leaf and ranks second in franchise history in games, goals, assists, and points by a defenseman, trailing only Börje Salming in each category. He has been a loyal soldier, an excellent ambassador for the organization, and a player who repeatedly elevated his performance in playoffs past.
After an offseason in which a departure seemed likely, plenty of Leafs fans would happily jump aboard a Rielly redemption story. If a more structured team, a lighter workload, and a fresh voice behind the bench help him rediscover some of his old game, it would be a rewarding development for both the player and the organization.
The other possibility is that Rielly’s return drifts into uglier, way-overstaying-the-welcome territory, and a difficult contract situation becomes no easier to resolve.
The organization and the player need to work together to prevent that outcome. For the coaching staff, that starts with an honest assessment of what Rielly is, a role designed around that reality, and a legitimate opportunity to build himself back up.
